Comments on: Ranking the Presidents: Will Obama Make It To Mt. Rushmore?http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/07/21/ranking-the-presidents-will-obama-make-it-to-mt-rushmore/
A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential PoliticsThu, 05 Feb 2015 14:30:34 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: edhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/07/21/ranking-the-presidents-will-obama-make-it-to-mt-rushmore/comment-page-1/#comment-36137
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:37:31 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8208#comment-36137I have a huge issue with that ranking. Barack Obama, fifteenth greatest president? Come on! I rank him as number 44 where he should be. Worst president ever. He raised taxes on all families, while lying that he would only raise them on the wealthy. He lied about Benghazi, letting four men die, not sending them any help when help was requested months in advance. Added more debt to the national debt in four years than any other president ever spent. He put us in more debt in four years than Bush did in eight, while he criticized Bush. Obamacare will destroy our economy even further, adding even more taxes. It will burden everyone. Obama is leading the slowest economical growth since world war 2. Yes, he is the worst president. America is waking up to it. In three and a half years, he will taste the cruelty of polls and be ranked among the worst, which he deserves.
George W. Bush is ranked and treated unfairly. I’m not saying he’s the best, but not one of the worst. He did not lie about the Iraq war. http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/debunking-8-anti-war-myths-about-the-conflict-in-iraq/
Sadaam Hussein was a threat to the nation. He needed to be killed. We also needed to establish democracy there, so Iraqi citizens would not be terrorized by their leaders. We needed to go to Afghanistan because they posed a huge threat to our nation on 9/11. I would say Bush should probably be ranked somewhere in the middle. Not at the end. It’s unfair. I hope that history will see him differently than they do now. It might take ten years. Maybe twenty. Or more. But I pray history doesn’t see him as a liar and a war criminal like some sick liberals are implementing into young minds today.
Jimmy Carter should be listed second to last. He was far worse than Bush too. Hell, Clinton should be ranked after Bush if it was my choice. There’s so much that the public does not know
]]>By: sdu754http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/07/21/ranking-the-presidents-will-obama-make-it-to-mt-rushmore/comment-page-1/#comment-27785
Thu, 21 Jun 2012 02:23:46 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8208#comment-27785One big problem with these rankings is that you have to wonder how the rankers assign rankings to presidents that they don’t know much about. Do they take the time to research each president they don’t have much knowledge of? Or do they take shortcuts, by looking to past polls or reading generalized history books. My guess is they take the short cuts, thus repeating mistakes of the past.

A major problem with the Sienna poll is that it gives equal wieght to all 20 categories. The problem with this is that certain categories are more important than others. For example, Hoovers presidency was swallowed up almost entirely by the Great Depression, so to say that handling of the economy should only be wieghted as 5% of the total is ridiculous.

It should also be noted that the Presidents ranked at the top of the poll have no almost no low rankings, and the ones at the bottom have almost no high rankings. In fact, of the bottom 11 presidents, if you remove Hoover, there was only one top 20 ranking in any category. Bush got 19th in willing to take risks. Are we to belive that these presidents were completely bad accross the board? My guess would be that atleast some people surveyed made sure that thier rankings would reflect where they though presidents should rank. That would demonstrate why George W Bush is ranked poorly in all the categories.

]]>By: Sandyhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/07/21/ranking-the-presidents-will-obama-make-it-to-mt-rushmore/comment-page-1/#comment-19366
Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:20:15 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8208#comment-19366Obama should rank either last or close to last — he is truly awful!
Intelligent – he won’t release his transcripts – and he can’t talk without a teleprompter!

Clinton was a road scholar – and has the educational background to back his intelligence! Obama was admitted to Harvard Law without a 3.5 GPA (else he would have made honor roll).

His leadership ability absolutely sucks! He can’t make a decision! Bush W. could at least make a decision and stick with it (whether I agreed or not)…

In my view Obama = the worse President in history!

]]>By: Randyhttp://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2010/07/21/ranking-the-presidents-will-obama-make-it-to-mt-rushmore/comment-page-1/#comment-17358
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:44:14 +0000http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=8208#comment-17358I have to agree on most of your points about these ratings. It would be difficult for anyone to seriously grade presidents in this manner. We all have our opinions of what points matter most. For instance, Clinton reduced out debt significantly, but was impeached for lying or whatever reason they came up with.

While lying under oath is a serious offense, GW Bush took us to at least one war under false pretenses and bad intelligence. The thousand who died as a result, seems like a much more impeachable offense.